About your Search

20130101
20130131
STATION
CSPAN 7
KQED (PBS) 3
MSNBCW 3
KPIX (CBS) 2
CSPAN2 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LINKTV 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
. in the au, sovereign debt is what got the -- in the eu, sovereign debt is what got the eu into trouble. the new rules expand to go beyond sovereign debt, beyond mortgage-backed securities. i think there is a real trade- off here. many of these things will not be liquid when push comes to shove. on the other hand, if you have a very narrow set of liquid assets, if those assets get in trouble, as we learned with the euro crisis, then you have something that is a shock that would not be systemic become systemic and threaten the entire system. the only thing that is truly liquid is cash. the vast majority of us banks today -- u.s. banks today and european banks would already be compliant with these rules. i would go as far as to say that bear stearns would have in compliance with these rules, for instance. , what about taking a chance on the lottery? it has paid off for a couple of people in spain. winning ticket holders have seized more than $1 billion in the national lottery. they have been celebrating their luck. the top ticket was around $260,000. new austerity measures mean they will
to seek a fresh settlement with the eu and then to seek the consent of the british people to that settlement. >> i can confirm that that is exactly what i believe this country should do. it is the right thing for britain, because it is right that we are involved in the single market and are active players in the eu, but there are changes that we would like in our relationship that would be good for britain and good for europe, and because of the changes taking place in the eurozone, which is driving a lot of the change in the european union, there is every opportunity to achieve that settlement and then seek consent for it. >> a colleague of lord marland said, "he likes the foreign travel, leading trade delegations, meeting foreign leaders, but wasn't so keen on the detailed" policy of his new job. hmm, i wonder if the prime minister knows anybody else like that. >> the honorable gentleman had all morning to think of that! it is important that we have ministers in both houses who are linking up with the fastest-growing countries in the world. that is why our exports to chi
the e.u.'s jobless rate hitting 11.8%, 18.8 million people going without work. the highest is in spain, where a quarter of its working population is unemployed. youth unemployment is at a record high, and exports from germany and france are falling. it is among the top risks for investors here. ian, happy new year. we have seen u.s. stock prices climb to five-year heights, despite the risks in europe. are the risks getting more pronounced for global investors? >> no. the risks are overplayed. people have been concerned about the likelihood the eurozone was going to fall apart. you only had to have a economist description last year. i think they ran eight different cover stories, showing the euro either blowing up or breaking apart or bursting into flames. not going to happen. no greek exit. no anybody else exit. but the austerity that is hitting, and hitting hard, precisely because the germans are trying to create fiscal union, and ultimately more accountability for the budgets of these peripheral countries, is hurting pretty bad. europe, you're definitely going to see significant cont
the e.u. to impose sanctions on hezbollah, and you have been a believer that we should not do it alone, we should do with unilateral. what we do take the chance and urged the european union to sanction has a lot? is we shouldn insurer swer not be writing lesser proof, i think the president is the appropriate official. >> and congress has no interest in whether the e.u. would be sanctioned as a terrorist or a station? >> the congress has a responsibility in a lot of things. >> that me ask you this about the iranian revolutionary guard. he said a minute ago you think they are a terrorist recession. do you agree? bailout yes. >> and you voted against the amendment designating them as a terrorist organization because they are recognized as a state? iran, you would not want to designate the army of a recognized as a terrorist? >> i just clarify a statement on iran being a recognized nation by the nine nations, by most world bodies. the reason why i did not vote as 22 other members that because i think jim webb's argument was a strong argument, and that is we have -- and this is what he said
. defended dialogue with hamas. refused to join in a letter calling on e.u. to condemn hezbollah. he had a pejorative comment to jewish lobby. he has taken stances that indicateed he is less than supportive of the relationship with israel. >> there are two key democrats that could factor in how this goes. one is new york democratic senator schumer. >> he is staying quiet on the fight. talk about the real oppositio opposition. i think there will be some tough hurdles to get over with republicans. but i don't think there is enough democratic fight to stop the nomination. out of loyalty to the president who don't want him appointed will vote for him. >> bret: john kerry, fair to say he has an easy ride? >> yeah. it's an opportunity to get questions answered on benghazi or put it front and center in how the future of the state department will be run. no, i don't think there is any problem with him. >> bret: you agree, carl? >> it's interesting hearing. i agree that the committee means he gets approved but he will be asked about benghazi and about the basic tenets. and he will go on about the
to israel, but what they pose to america. when they call on the eu to designate hezbollah terrorist organization. they cite the damage that hezbollah has done to american military men and women and american security interests and for steve to just, you know, like sweep this away is, this is just israel and israel supporters wanting a bunch of love letters is really, i'd say, actually, offensive. if you look -- why is ben carden. senior democrat in a democratic conference. he came out today. so, this is a senior democrat knowing that the president of his party is about to nominate chuck hagel for secretary of defense and ben carden is raising serious questions. yet, another democrat to raise questions. what is giving them pause? i don't think it's as simple as steve just dismissed it. these love letters or disagreement over some love letters to israel. real national security issues at stake. senator hagel was opposed to sanctions against syria. one of a handful of sanctions -- >> i want to get steve to respond to you on that. i want to throw in this issue. what is a bigger issue for
the sum total of all of your votes, refusing to sign a letter to the e.u. asking hezbollah to be designated a terrorist organization, being one of 22 to vote to guard terrorist terrorist organization, one of two to vote on sanction this body tried to make on iran and the statements you made after palestinians and about the jewish lobby, all of that together, that the image you created is one of sending the worst possible signal to enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> i would not agree with that. if you had a chance tomorrow, today, after lunch, vote to say the iranian revolutionary guard was terrorist organization would you vote no? >> times change. it recognize that. yes, i would reconsider. >> thank you. that encouraging. >> bret: interesting exchange with lindsey graham. back with the panel. you talk about senator graham's exchange with chuck hagel. >> now that we have shown everyone how spontaneous and non-rehearsed we, are i was thinking of the tape where he quotes hagel saying the jewish lobby has intimidated senators in to voting
for sanctions in syria. he wouldn't sign a letter to the eu to designation hezbollah a terrorist organization. if he does have a problem here, jonathan, is it going to be that republicans have made the argument he's beyond the mainstream or something we don't know about yet. >> it could be one or the other. that's why the confirmation hearings are going to be vitally important. right now as you said at the top of the show, both sides, the pro-hagel people and anti-hagel people are engaged in a bit of a campaign to sort of set of narrative for who this person could be as secretary of defense. before he sits before the confirmation hearings and answer questions, tough questions from democrats and republicans alike, on all of these issues from his support of israel to his criticisms of the iraq war, the afghanistan war, the -- his unwillingness to sign that letter designating hamas as a terrorist organization, these are all questions he's going to have to answer and how he answers them could very well determine whether he's confirmed or not. >> well, he started to answer them a little bit. he di
of your votes, refusing to sign a letter to the e.u. asking hezbollah to be designated a terrorist organization, being one of 22 to vote to designate the iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization, being one of two on two occasions to vote against sanctions that this body was trying to impose on iran, the statements you made about palestinians and about the jewish lobby, all that together. that the image you created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> no, i would not agree with that. because i have taken actions and made statements very clear as to what i believe hezbollah and hamas are as a terrorist organizations. >> if you had a chance tomorrow, today, after lunch, to vote to say that the iranian revolutionary guard was a terrorist organization. would you still vote no? >> the reason i voted no to start with... >> well i know why, you told me that. my question is would you reconsider and would you vote yes this time? or would you still vote no? >> times change. i recognize that an
123450eu6789. >> schieffer: you're favoring getting out of there. >> the quicker the better. >> schieffer: should we leave a residual force there of some kind. >> bob i would think i've been there twice now as a governor and as a u.s. senator and i believe we have some strategic especially the force base. that's a tremendous opportunity strategic point for us to launch from to protect our troops for our special forces to operate out of. i would did he ever to the experts -- defer to the experts and professionals on that. we have this war on terror not just from our generation but our children's and grandchildren's. we have to be able to strike at terror before it strikes us. >> schieffer: i don't think there's any question we have denied al-qaeda a save haven in afghanistan but they now have a safe haven in pakistan. what do we do with pakistani. >> i approve of the jones strikes there. i'm one that says we should use all the technology we have to protect america and americans without putting them in harm's way. that's been very effective. we've been able to strike and tak
to the e.u. asking hezbollah to be designated a terrorist organization, being one of 22 to vote to designate the iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization, being one of two on two occasions to vote against sanctions that this body was trying to impose on iran, the statements you made about palestinians and about the jewish lobby, all that together. that the image you created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> no, i would not agree with that. because i have taken actions and made statements very clear as to what i believe hezbollah and hamas are as a terrorist organizations. >> if you had a chance tomorrow, today, after lunch, to vote to say that the iranian revolutionary guard was a terrorist organization. would you still vote no? >> the reason i voted no to start with... >> well i know why, you told me that. my question is would you reconsider and would you vote yes this time? or would you still vote no? >> times change. i recognize that and, yes, i would reconsider. >> well, t
trying to convince the e.u. to designate hezbollah as a global terrorist organization. this will be some interesting hearings and i think the senate will ask some pretty tough questions. jenna: to generalize that that that is interesting because it is about being able to name who our enmy -- enemies are in a broad context. general scales, senator kerry and senator hagel, both vets and supporters of the military and critics of the military as well. how do you have the two vets in high positions potentially? what would that mean? >> that's a great question. first of all i tend to support the person over the policy. i testified before senator hagel's committee in 2007 over the surge and i talked with him at length after my testimony. i will tell you this. one thing that struck me about him is enormous empathy for the american soldier. and as the military draws down he is going to be a person i think who maintains the trust and the compact that the government has with our returning veterans from iraq and afghanistan. so here's a buy who has seen war, who understands the nature and character
. 89 senators voted for it. he voted against it. a letter to the eu asking the eu to designate hezbollah a terrorist organization. 88 senators signed it. he was one of the ones who didn't. when there was a letter to russia asking to deal with the rising tide of anti-semitism in russia. 99 senators signed the letter, one did not, chuck hagel. he has the right to have those interviews but there is a bipartisan consensus in washington illustrated by the math outside it. the question is why does the president want that in the discussion? why does he want that person with those judgments running the pentagon at this time? those are important questions to be explored during the hearing. >> he should have the opportunity to answer that. he has made clear on matters that impact israel the most in a positive way, i would not have been on the side of senator hagel in those votes, important to answer it and important to look at his entire record. on the things that matter most with u.s. policy and our great ally, israel, he has been as responsible as any when it comes to financial support
. you made a great point here, it is highly contagious, it's more contagious than the tphrao*eu. another thing it has in common with the flu is it changes rapidly it mutates. this year's strain is not the same as last year's strain. when you have a new strain you get twice as many cases. this is a very problematic thing. it's going to spread all over the country. i want the people out there to distinguish the symptoms. if you're feeling the vomiting, nausea, the diarrhea this is the n o noro virus. bill: you say it starts in utah. >> it's having huge out breaks in nursing homes and churches in utah. my guess is that somebody flew over from england or wales to utah bringing it there. plane flights spreads this incredibly rapidly. bill: if that is the case you have to wash your hands, man, that is your defense number one is it not? >> right, the flu is the respiratory virus. this one you get by touching sur tpaes, eac surfaces, touching food, you need to stay away from people when you're actually sick with this. bill: keep the fingertips out of your eyes. you see people doing that, that is
refused to position the e.u. to identify hezbollah as a terrorist group. third, in november of twee, you failed to -- 2003, you failed to vote on a syrian accountability act with sanctions -- occupation of lebanon. four, in 2001, you were one of only two senators that year to vote against renewal of the iran-libya sanctions act. and lastly, in 2001, you were one of four senators who refused to sign the letter supporting israel. are those accurate? >> well, let's start with the -- >> no. i just want to know if the statement -- these are votes that took place. do you agree those votes took place? >> i want to ask the letter that you just noted in your fifth point, what was the date in the letter? >> the date. >> you said i refused to sign letter. >> october of 2001. >> a letter to -- >> ok. skip that one. is the other ones true? >> well, it was fairly important -- >> it's very important. i was holding the letter at the time that we were gathering signatures. >> i see. on the 2008 question regarding designating the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, i did vote against it. >> i
total of all of your votes refusing to sign a letter to the eu, asking has a lot to be designated as a terrorist organization, being one of 22 to vote to designate the iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, being one of two to vote against sanctions this body was trying to impose on iran, the statements you have made about palestinians and the jewish lobby -- all of that together, that the image you have created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> no, i would not agree with that because i have taken actions and made statements very clear as to what i believe hezbollah and hamas are as terrorist organizations. >> if there was a vote on the floor of the senate this afternoon to label the iranian national -- revolutionary guard, the people that killed soldiers in iraq, some of the most vicious people to the people of iran themselves, if there was a vote would you still vote no? >> i would want to know from the president what they were doing. ask i mean you read the paper, you w
organization by the united states and in 2006 he was only one of only 12 senators who refused to write the eu asking them to declare hezbollah a terrorist organization. why did he do that? >> chuck hagel is his own man. he wears no man's collar and he will continue to be his own man. that is the kind of person you want as secretary of state, when you're in the room deciding about war and peace. you want somebody to give their honest opinion. chuck hagel's opinions can come out in the hearings and the american people can decide. there's no question about the fact that the senate i think will ultimately confirm by an overwhelming majority chuck hagel as secretary of defense because nobody is going to really seriously consider violating the president's choice here in the middle of a war, in the middle of a shooting war. >> senator cleland, it's good to see you. thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >>> on monday the president said his cia nominee, john brennan, helped him create the strategy that has devastated the leadership of al qaeda. senior correspondent john m
at the e.u. level. we have been for investigation for it almost two years by the commissioner there and his staff. during this period, they comment from everybody and we give them literally millions of documents. we are busy negotiating with them. we don't think we violated any european laws, but we're happy to have the conversation and 're sort of now waiting on with a they decide to do. we have been negotiating back and forth and they have announced that publicly. in the united states, the law is similar but different if the way it's applied. in our indication, the government to have the federal trade commission look at this and a similar investigation is underway. there were a sers of hearings. i testified at the hearings and, again, i don't see the consumer arm under section 2 and we have asked the government to come back and give us the examples of things which are violations of law. we haven't seen that yet we are also in negotiations with them. that's probably all i should y. what i would say is we talk to these people a lot. we're waiting on them at some level. the ideal scenarioou
in europe and the u.s. the european process is a finding at the e.u. level. we have been for investigation for it almost two years by the commissioner there and his staff. during this period, they comment from everybody and we give them literally millions of documents. we are busy negotiating with them. we don't think we violated any european laws, but we're happy to have the conversation and we're sort of now waiting on with a they decide to do. we have been negotiating back and forth and they have announced that publicly. in the united states, the law is similar but different if the way it's applied. in our indication, the government to have the federal trade commission look at this and a similar investigation is underway. there were a series of hearings. i testified at the hearings and, again, i don't see the consumer arm under section 2 and we have asked the government to come back and give us the examples of things which are violations of law. we haven't seen that yet. we are also in negotiations with them. that's probably all i should say. what i would say is we talk to these people
enlarging the stability in europe itself by enlarging our institution, the eu or nato. what's happened to that agenda? is a no longer a part of the democratic countries? and if the answer is was so care about -- are whether georgia can become more stable, how do we get smarter about it? it isn't obvious our institutions hold the same if you used to hold five or six years ago. it isn't obvious that comes like ukraine had to stay democratizing instinct, the country of central europe had 10 years ago. so what, if anything, would you do different to make sure part of your democratic in state? >> i'd like to say quickly, i think some countries have taken a bit of an appetite suppressant when he came to their ambitions of being part of the european union, for example. >> but they are democratic. >> but they are democratic. but there also has to be benefit that flows. i think that is very much a part of the typos as to whether people are going to pursue being part of a larger union, being part of an obsession like nato. there has to be some apparent benefit in so doing. you know, the ability
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)